Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:117977 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 25446 of 2025 Applicant :- Shadab Ahmad and 7 others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Sisodia,Shashank Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Shashank Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Kripa Shankar, learned AGA for the State. 2. This application u/s 528 of BNSS has been preferred to quash entire proceeding of complaint Case No. 1159 of 2025 (Rukhsar Vs. Shadab Ahmad and others) as well as summoning order dated 14.05.2025 under sections 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Bijnor pending in the court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C. in (Offence against Women) Court No. 2, Bijnor. 3. The case of the applicant is that under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the DV Act-2005 stood lodged by the opposite party no. 2 on 14.05.2025 with an allegation that the marriage of the applicant no. 1 stood solemnized with the opposite party no. 2 on 06.06.2021. Allegation in the complaint is that expenditure worth Rs. 1,70,000/- was incurred, however, the applicants herein were not satisfied with the gifts so offered and expectation was more. The opposite party claims that she was thrown out from matrimonial house in the month of June, 2023 thereafter, she was with her parents on 13.07.2023 a baby was born on 18.04.2024, the applicant barged in the maternal house of the opposite party no. 2 wherein the opposite party no. 2 was living and inflicted injuries. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that now the applicants have been issued notices on 14.05.2025. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants have not committed the offence and no offence is made. He further submits that totally false and frivolous allegations have been levelled. 4. Learned AGA, on the other hand, submits that no order have been passed under Chapter IV of the DV Act, thus, it is for the applicants to contest the proceedings. 5. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully. 6. The sole question which arises for consideration is the extent of judicial intervention at this stage. Apparently, complaint has been lodged by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicants with respect to subjection to domestic violance. The opposite party no. 2 claims herself to be the wife of the applicant no. 1 so she answers the description of aggrieved person under Section 2(a) and there is domestic relationship under Section 2(f) and the respondents in the complaint are respondents within the definition of Section 2(r) and there is a shared house hold under Section 2(s). Since, prima facie, the allegations are with respect to domestic violence against in-laws, thus, it would not be appropriate for this Court to scuttle the proceedings. Recently, the scope of proceedings u/s 482 CrPC/528 BNSS came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2688 of 2025 (Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi Vs. Vidhi Rawal) decided on 19.05.2025, Hon'ble Apex Court had the occasion to consider the extent of intervention in the matters where complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act, 2005 was challenged, wherein it was observed as under.- "...35. When it comes to exercise of power under Section 482 of the CrPC in relation to application under Section 12(1), the High Court has to keep in mind the fact that the DV Act, 2005 is a welfare legislation specially enacted to give justice to those women who suffer from domestic violence and for preventing acts of domestic violence. Therefore, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing proceedings under Section 12(1), the High Court should be very slow and circumspect. Interference can be made only when the case is clearly of gross illegality or gross abuse of the process of law. Generally, the High Court must adopt a hands-off approach while dealing with proceedings under Section 482 for quashing an application under Section 12(1). Unless the High Courts show restraint in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC while dealing with a prayer for quashing the proceedings under the DV Act, 2005, the very object of enacting the DV Act, 2005, will be defeated. 39. To conclude, the view taken in the impugned order of the High Court that a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC for challenging the proceedings emanating from Section 12(1) of the DV Act, 2005 is not maintainable, is not the correct view. We hold that High Courts can exercise power under Section 482 of CrPC (Section 528 of the BNSS) for quashing the proceedings emanating from the application under Section 12(1) of the DV Act, 2005, pending before the Court of the learned Magistrate. However, considering the object of the DV Act, 2005, the High Courts should exercise caution and circumspection when dealing with an application under Section 12(1). Normally, interference under Section 482 is warranted only in the case of gross illegality or injustice." 7. Since no orders have been passed under Chapter IV of the Act and only notices have been issued, thus, it is for the applicant to contest the proceedings while taking all legal and factual grounds. 8. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of leaving it open for the applicants to contest the proceedings while taking all legal and factual grounds before the court below. Order Date :- 21.7.2025 Rajesh Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad